Depending on the image or words portrayed I definitely think that dynamic pictures, static concrete pictures, or concrete pictures can be just as effective as a combination of the three if not more. As you said, the interpretation of the text varies from person to person, culture to culture, and can even mean different things at different times. I think what is most effective in evoking a reaction or connection with an audience is finding an emotional appeal to connect with the audience, whether is humor, sadness or anger. For instance, the image in our text on page 385 with Florence Thompson and her children do a couple different things for the person looking at it. Before I read the caption, I knew that there was a sense of worry and tiredness in the mother’s eyes. Her children’s faces aren’t even shown in the picture, they are turned away resting on her shoulder which could indicate that they are tired, or need caring. After reading the caption, it is still a sad image, but I’m sure someone who lived in the Great Depression would be triggered with memories because it’s something they lived through.
I would agree that Obama’s campaign for “hope” was extremely effective in light of the United States’ situation—a time when the majority of the US were tired of the old and ready for something new—“HOPE” is the simplest, most effective and relatable way Obama’s campaign could have gone, because it not only says that they are what America is hoping for, but they are giving them the chance to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment